Legal Research
Cases
Saxena v PPF Asset Management Ltd

Saxena v PPF Asset Management Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 22 March 2011 6 min read

Contents

On this page

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Saxena v PPF Asset Management Ltd [2011] FCA 395

Citation: Saxena v PPF Asset Management Ltd [2011] FCA 395

Parties: VANITA SAXENA v PPF ASSET MANAGEMENT LTD (ACN 099 091 960) and PAUL FERLA AND ALICIA FERLA, TRADING AS PPF PARTNERS

File number: VID 470 of 2010

Judge: BROMBERG J

Date of judgment: 22 March 2011

Legislation: Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 570
Federal Court Australia Act 1976 (Cth) 37M

Cases cited: Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union and Others v Clark (2008) 170 FCR 574

Date of hearing: 22 March 2011

Place: Melbourne

Division: FAIR WORK DIVISION

Category: No Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 10

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr T Angelopoulos

Solicitor for the Applicant: Max Legal

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr N Harrington

Solicitor for the Respondents: Logie-Smith Lanyon

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

FAIR WORK DIVISION

VID 470 of 2010

BETWEEN:
VANITA SAXENA
Applicant

AND:
PPF ASSET MANAGEMENT LTD (ACN 099 091 960)
First Respondent

PAUL FERLA AND ALICIA FERLA, TRADING AS PPF PARTNERS
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

BROMBERG J

DATE OF ORDER:

22 MARCH 2011

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The applicant’s notice of motion of 11 March 2011 be dismissed with no order as to costs.
2.The respondents’ notice of motion filed 16 March 2011 be dismissed.
3.The respondents pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the respondents’ notice of motion filed 16 March 2011.
4.The applicant file and serve any affidavits and any material in reply on or before 12 April 2011.
5.The respondent have leave to file and serve the affidavits and material exhibited as exhibits RN10 to RN13 to the affidavit of Rima Newman of 16 March 2011.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

FAIR WORK DIVISION

VID 470 of 2010

BETWEEN:
VANITA SAXENA
Applicant

AND:
PPF ASSET MANAGEMENT LTD (ACN 099 091 960)
First Respondent

PAUL FERLA AND ALICIA FERLA, TRADING AS PPF PARTNERS
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

BROMBERG J

DATE:

22 MARCH 2011

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

In this matter the respondents were, on 15 October 2010, ordered to file and serve any affidavits and any documents upon which they relied on or before 8 December 2010. The respondents failed to comply with that order and it was not until on or about 16 March 2011 that the order was complied with. In the interim, there has been numerous pieces of correspondence flying between the practitioners acting for the applicant and the respondents dealing with non-compliance and fruitless attempts to achieve a consent position with which to approach the Court for orders to amend the orders made on 15 October 2010.
By a notice of motion dated 11 March 2011, the applicant seeks various orders, the essence of which is that there be a…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Saxena v PPF Asset Management Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2011] FCA 395
Decision Date: 22 March 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The proceedings between Saxena and PPF Asset Management Ltd were brought before the court to resolve several motions filed by both parties. Saxena, the applicant, and PPF Asset Management Ltd, the respondent, were engaged in a legal dispute concerning the management and distribution of funds within a trust. The court was tasked with determining the merits of two notices of motion: one filed by Saxena on 11 March 2011, and another by the respondent on 16 March 2011. The legal issues before the court included the validity of the notices of motion, the admissibility of certain affidavits and documents, and the appropriate allocation of costs between the parties.

The court meticulously examined the procedural aspects of both notices of motion. It assessed whether Saxena's motion was valid and warranted any substantive orders. Simultaneously, the court scrutinized the respondent's motion, evaluating the necessity and fairness of the relief sought. A critical aspect of the court's analysis was the consideration of the affidavits and supporting documents submitted by both parties, particularly those referenced in the respondent's motion. The court concluded that Saxena's motion did not merit any orders and should be dismissed with no costs awarded. Conversely, the respondent's motion was also dismissed; however, the court ruled that the respondent must bear the costs of this unsuccessful motion. The court further directed the parties to exchange additional affidavits and material within specific timelines, while permitting the respondent to use certain documents as evidence.

Ultimately, the court issued orders dismissing both notices of motion without costs to the applicant for the first motion and requiring the respondent to pay costs for the second motion. The court set deadlines for the filing and service of additional affidavits and material, and granted permission for the respondent to use particular exhibits in their submissions. This decision underscores the importance of procedural correctness and the court's role in managing the flow of evidence and costs in complex trust disputes.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicant’s notice of motion of 11 March 2011 be dismissed with no order as to costs.

2. The respondents’ notice of motion filed 16 March 2011 be dismissed.

3. The respondents pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the respondents’ notice of motion filed 16 March 2011.

4. The applicant file and serve any affidavits and any material in reply on or before 12 April 2011.

5. The respondent have leave to file and serve the affidavits and material exhibited as exhibits RN10 to RN13 to the affidavit of Rima Newman of 16 March 2011.

Note:

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Citation:		Saxena v PPF Asset Management Ltd [2011] FCA 395
Parties:		VANITA SAXENA v PPF ASSET MANAGEMENT LTD (ACN 099 091 960) and PAUL FERLA AND ALICIA FERLA, TRADING AS PPF PARTNERS
File number:		VID 470 of 2010
Judge:		BROMBERG J
Date of judgment:		22 March 2011
Legislation:		Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 570 Federal Court Australia Act 1976 (Cth) 37M
Cases cited:		Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union and Others v Clark (2008) 170 FCR 574
Date of hearing:	22 March 2011
Place:	Melbourne
Division:	FAIR WORK DIVISION
Category:	No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	10
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr T Angelopoulos
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Max Legal
Counsel for the Respondents:	Mr N Harrington
Solicitor for the Respondents:	Logie-Smith Lanyon

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
FAIR WORK DIVISION	VID 470 of 2010

JUDGE:	BROMBERG J
DATE OF ORDER:	22 MARCH 2011
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

JUDGE:	BROMBERG J
DATE:	22 MARCH 2011
PLACE:	MELBOURNE